← All Phrases

“Section 11(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(2)636 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(2) is Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. (156 ITR 11), cited in 541 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(2)

Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.
156 ITR 11 · 1985 · High Court
541
citing judgments

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
390
citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
328
citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT
101 ITR 234 · 1975 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

This case defines 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act as systematic instruction, schooling, or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. It clarifies that 'education' in this context has a narrow meaning, not extending to every acquisition of further knowledge.

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

Judgments citing Section 11(2)

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3404/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc Dcit (International Taxation)- Wework India Management Private 1(1)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No. 517, Limited Vs. 2Nd Floor, Express Towers, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ranath Goenka Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 143(3)

capital gain. On the income computed after set off of loss, deductions provisions contained under Chapter VIA apply. 13 Thus, as per section 11(2) of India-UAE treaty, firstly, computation of income and its taxability has to be determined in terms with the domestic law, i.e., the Income

Health Foundation & Research Centre, Dahod vs. The ACIT, Circle-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 483/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

electronically along with the return or subsequently up to the time of assessment. The AO further recorded that no accumulation under section 11(2) had been claimed, nor any application made under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the assessee had failed

St. Gregorios Education and Medical Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Exemtion, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1432/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

impugned assessment year, the assessee filed the return on 07/11/2022decalring total income amount to Rs.5,65,824/-. The assessee claimed deduction under section 11(2) of the Act related its income over expenditure. Due to delay in filing ROI and Form 10B, the Ld. AO rejected the deduction claimed ... completion of assessment proceedings - Held, yes - Whether even if Form 10 was filed during re-assessment by assessee-trust, benefit of accumulation under section 11(2) was available because such filing would be considered within time allowed for furnishing return of income under section 139(4) - Held, yes [Paras

Himalayan Buddhist Cultural Association, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2299/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2023-24 Himalayan Buddhist Cultural Vs. Income Tax Officer, Association, New Delhi B-4, Ladakh Buddhist Vihara, Tarav Devi Colony, Bela Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaath1948L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Rajat Garg, Ca Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

within the permissible time limit as per section 11(3)(c) of the Act before its amendment by Finance Act, 2022. 5.2 Section 11(2) of the Act allows a charitable or religious trust to accumulate income for a maximum period of 5 years for application towards specified purposes, subject ... longer available. 5.4 In the present case, the appellant accumulated Rs. 18,44,782/- in AY 2017-18. Therefore, as per section 11(2), this amount had to be utilized within 5 years, i.e., up to AY 2022-23. After the amendment to section 11(3)(c), which is effective

Apna Ghar Ashram, Jodhpur vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, Ward (Exemption), Bangalore / Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

proof of a broad or universal functionality of the filing portal when compared with the body of assessees seeking to accumulate income under Section 11(2) of the Act. We take judicial notice of the fact that the said year saw an exponential increase in the number of tax filings ... reported in other leading national periodicals. The number of 3687 thus clearly fails to inspire any confidence. 25. More importantly, we note that Section 11(2) speaks of a statement in the prescribed form (which in this case is Form 10) being "furnished" to the AO. The change

The Dharmodayam Company, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 795/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 31

accumulated. It is not necessary that the specific purpose should be mentioned in Form 10 for accumulation of income under the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act. In the light of this proposition we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file

The Dharmodayam Company, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 794/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 31

accumulated. It is not necessary that the specific purpose should be mentioned in Form 10 for accumulation of income under the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act. In the light of this proposition we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file

The Dharmodayam Compan, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 793/COCH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 31

accumulated. It is not necessary that the specific purpose should be mentioned in Form 10 for accumulation of income under the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act. In the light of this proposition we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file

The Dharmodayam Company, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 792/COCH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav., Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 31

accumulated. It is not necessary that the specific purpose should be mentioned in Form 10 for accumulation of income under the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act. In the light of this proposition we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand to the file

Indian Medical Association Kerala State Branch, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 542/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV., JM

Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 40/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-2024 Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad,…………...……Appellant Sector-1, Trust Bhawan, Ca-49, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, West Bengal [Pan:Aaets4162K] -Vs.- Deputy Director Of Income Tax,................Respondent Circle Cpc, Bengaluru, Prestige Alpha, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic City Post, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100, Karnataka Appearances By: Shri N. Kausic, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 30, 2025 O R D E R

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2

ITA No. 40/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2023-2024) Salt Lake Sanskritik Sansad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before

Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 419/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Miss Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132

present case, the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to entertain the new ground by which the assessee claimed the benefit 26 under Section 11(2) of the Act and adjudicate the tax liability of the assessee. As already noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal has categorically found that "the additional ground ... involves the question relating to interpretation of Section 11(2) and the facts on the basis of which such a decision is to be given regarding interpretation of Section 11(2) are not at all in dispute". In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal

Shree Subrahmanya Temple, Thokur vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward-2, Mangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2437/BANG/2024[2437]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Boarkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 111Section 13(9)

Furthermore, the assessee has filed belated return which is in contravention of section 13(9) of the Act and prohibits the benefit of section 11(2) of the Act in case of belated return. . Page 3 of 10 6. The AO also found that the assessee is not eligible ... that in case a trust desire to accumulate the profit in excess of the limit allowed i.e. 15% then the condition specified under section 11(2) of the Act should needs to be fulfilled for the entire amount, not only for amount in excess of 15%. If the condition prescribed

Lions Nab Community Eyecare Centre, Miraj, Sangli vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 257/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.257/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Lions Nab Community Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Eyecare Centre, Plot No.P-39, Midc, Miraj, Sangli- 416410. Pan : Aabfl4373L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is Recalled Matter. Vide Order Dated In M.A. No.151/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Filed Against The Order Of The Tribunal In Ita No.257/Pun/2022 Dated 06.01.2023 (Appeal Filed By The Assessee) Was Recalled To Adjudicate The Issue De Novo. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Condonation Application Duly

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(i)Section 11(1)(ii)Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

deemed to have applied 85% оr more of its income during the year for charitable purposes as per Section 11(1) or Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Perusal of the profit and loss account of the appellant reveals that the income received during the year

Koshambh Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. CPC, Bangalore Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Exemption Ward, Vadodara

In the result, the above ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act cannot be so fatal so as to deny very claim of exemption under Section 11(2) of the Act. 11. In the case of Shiksha Foundation vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) [2024] 164 taxmann.com 757 (Ahmedabad - Trib

Siva Sakthi Sathya Sai Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward 4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2944/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2944/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Siva Sakthi Sathya Sai Charitable Income Tax Officer, Trust, Vs. Exemptions Ward 4, 3/16, Ponniamman Koil Street, Chennai. Alapakkam, Chennai – 600 116. [Pan: Aadts-5679-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 139

Form No. 10 filed on 13.04.2019 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,51,65,700/- as accumulation/ set aside in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Act would replace the originally filed Form No. 10 dated 28.09.2018 claiming a sum of Rs.11,78,168/- as accumulation / set aside ... terms of Section 11 (2) of the Act and ought to have appreciated that the action in disallowing the sum claimed as accumulation forming part of Form Ne. 10 dated 13.04.2019 by reckoning the same filed beyond the time limit stipulated under the Act should accordingly be reckoned

Ramesh Garware Charity Trust, Pune vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 776/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.776/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramesh Garware Charitable V The Exemption Ward- Trust, S. 1(1), Pune. P B Box 3, Ramesh Garware Farm, Nda Road, Khadakwasla, Pune – 411023. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatr6365D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dalpat Shah – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax[Jcit(A)], Thiruvanantpura Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.08.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 234FSection 250

circumstances of the case, the said CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing deduction claimed of accumulation of Rs. 74,49,246/- under section 11(2) of the Income tax Act following the assessment order for A.Y 2017-18 ignoring the fact that the provisions of section 11(2) and Rule

Salva Welfare Trust, Pandikkad vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 864/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Salva Welfare Trust .......... Appellant Valluvangad South, Pandikkd, Malappuram 676521 [Pan: Aagts6013H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) .......... Respondent Kozhikode Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM

Bengal Education Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.199/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bengal Education Foundation…………….………………………..………….……Appellant 17/1, Rishi Bankim Chandra Road, Dum Dum, Kol-28. [Pan: Aactb1869Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata…..……....….….. ……………….........…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Charitable Trust & Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022-23 In Itr-7 On 02.11.2022 Under The Status Of Aop/Boi By Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.1,15,12,715/-. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By Cpc & Vide Intimation Order Dated 31.03.2023 A Demand Of Rs.50,28,260/- Had Been Raised After Denying The Assessee’S Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Made In The Return Of Income. Before Passing Of The Intimation Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act, The Cpc Had Sent Communication To The Assessee On 14.02.2023 Intimating The Proposed Adjustments.

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Save A Family Plan (India), Kanjoor vs. DCIT(Exemption), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

from accumulated income u/s. 11(2) of the Act. Therefore, such donation is not hit by provisions of Explanation inserted to section 11(2)(a) by the Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2023. Therefore, donations by the charitable trust to another charitable trust amount to 6 Save A Family Plan (India